Why The White House Dog Bite Scandal Matters

For the record, I don’t regard the video above, by itself, as convincing evidence that President Biden abuses dogs. It sure is suspicious, but confirmation bias is strong here: I firmly believe Biden is a bad guy who has masqueraded as otherwise his entire career, and since abusing animals is signature significance for unethical, untrustworthy people, Biden mistreating his own dogs seems consistent. That video does show me someone who doesn’t know how to interact with dogs in a kind and supportive way. I have used my foot on a dog in an adversarial manner exactly once on my life: when a stray dog broke into my yard and had my girlfriend’s cat in its mouth. In that video above, it is unclear whether Biden is actually kicking Commander, but he definitely is using his foot to keep the dog in line. It’s a bad sign.

The Bidens’ first German Shepherd, Major, was exiled to a family friend in Delaware in 2021 after biting several people at the White House. Commander was an innocent puppy when he was brought into the President’s home as a replacement, and now he has bitten more people than Major did. The most recent known incident was on September 25, when the dog bit a Secret Service officer seriously enough to require medical attention. Naturally, because this is how this White House deals with its embarrassments and mistakes, the President, his aides and the mainstream news media are spinning, denying, and minimizing the incidents. (Here’s the Times this week discussing the issue without impugning the Bidens at all.) With Major, the Bidens implied that a bitten Secret Service agent was lying about a bite that required him to seek medical treatment. This time, the White House claims that the President’s security detail has triggered the attacks with “unfriendly expressions”—you know, microaggressions. Right.

In one attack by Commander, an agent used a chair to defend himself from the dog . The latest victim was Dale Haney, 71, who is not part of Biden’s security team; so far, there’s no evidence that he was making faces at the dog. Judicial Watch, in a press release yesterday, claims to have evidence that Biden “has punched and kicked his dogs.”

What’s going on here? I think it’s mostly pretty clear.

First, the White House is a terrible place for any dog. Lots of strangers are coming in and out, and a dog’s “masters” are usually busy or missing. A herding breed like a German Shepherd is a particularly bad choice as a First Dog. Working dogs are generally strong-willed and need a job as well as lots of play, attention, training, socialization and exercise. If they don’t get it, they become nervous and stressed as well as fearful. Obviously, the Biden dogs weren’t getting it.

Donald Trump was sneered at by various pundits for being the first President within memory who didn’t have a dog or cat in the White House. You know—more proof that he’s evil. Trump said that he didn’t have time to take proper care of a dog, and that was a responsible answer. Presidents have often used dogs as props, especially after FDR’s Scottie, Fala, became popular and was referenced in Roosevelt’s less weighty speeches. (Fala bit a couple of people too.) When a POTUS has young children living at the White House, a family dog may get sufficient love and attention to be well-adjusted. (In the film of “The Pelican Brief” the corrupt and dim-witted President played by Robert Culp is better at teaching tricks to his dog than governing. You might think Biden would be an ideal real-life version of that President, but it appears not.)

Dog lovers whose brains and values have not been complete overcome by fealty to the Biden Presidency Ethics Train Wreck are beginning to be alarmed. Prof Turley wrote this week that the Bidens are breaking the law:

[T]he Bidens…are subject to strict liability. However, it is difficult for Secret Service agents to sue a protected family and the Bidens know it. They are the ultimate captive audience. That is not the case for civilians in the White House compound.They are not required to assume the role of chew toys for presidential pets. The Bidens are well beyond their one free bite. They are now clearly in possession of a vicious animal under the common law and can be held strictly liable as a result.

In other words, we are in familiar cover-up territory. Conservative pundit Stephen Green is more emotional, and wrote after noting the Judicial Watch allegation;

I must pause and collect myself before writing any further.I’m a dog person. My wife is so much of a dog person that the first big test of our budding relationship was when she looked me square in the eye and asked if I was a dog person….So it’s with outrage and trembling hands that I’m writing this report. Biden has now had two different German Shepherds, Commander and Major, who have repeatedly bitten Secret Service agents and other White House staff. That much is an established fact. There’s a pattern here, and that almost always reflects on the owner, not on the dogs.

I know this is true. Our rescue dog, Spuds, was neglected and abused before we adopted him. He is the sweetest dog we have ever had, but he is still suspicious of strangers when he is on a leash. (If I let him off the leash, he takes it as a sign that the individual is a friend to be trusted, and immediately sits on his or her foot and offers his magnificent head for an ear rub…) Spuds did bite a neighbor, and it was completely my fault: I had given him too much leash and let him go around a corner without my knowing that the area was clear. A man was on his hands and knees, working on some plants, and Spuds was startled—I don’t think he had ever seen a human in that position before. My fault, 100%. I also believe Spuds was kicked by his previous owner. I have often rubbed the backs of our other dogs (and cat) with my foot: Spuds growled and leaped up when I tried that with him initially, obviously regarding my foot as a threat. Now he trusts me, and enjoys the occasional foot-pat.

Green continues:

I’m inclined to believe that a guy who humiliates his constituents in public, as Biden has done his entire career, is likely to abuse his dogs in private. That he’s had at least two dogs with behavior problems is yet more evidence of possible abuse.Or, and this is the most generous interpretation, maybe Biden merely neglects his dogs….If there’s yet no direct evidence of abuse, there’s also zero direct evidence that Biden cares for his German Shepherds with the love and playtime they require. Abused or neglected, dogs treated either way will act out. Biden’s surviving adult children both show evidence of emotional abuse or neglect, and one of them even wrote about it extensively in her now-public diary…At this moment, all I can care about is the shallowness and callowness of a two-bit schemer who has abused or neglected his public trophy dogs to the point where two sweet animals are dangerous to those around them.

That’s a bit too far for me, but not too too far. It’s clear the Democrat Woke will tolerate constant lies, totalitarian tactics, the use of the justice system against political enemies, the presence of a mentally declining mediocrity in one of the most difficult jobs in the world and more, and also that the mainstream media lacks the integrity, courage and dedication to its role in a democracy to be critics and whistleblowers rather than accessories. I wonder, however, if the “dog people” among them will support a President whom they conclude is cruel to his dogs.

Confronting My Biases, Episode 2: The Presumptuous And The Officious

If I didn’t find the term offensive, I might have called this post “The Attack of the Karens” (The first love of my life, in high school, was named Karen. She married my best friend. I don’t want to talk about it…). It’s also another Spuds story. Let me state right up front: this is one bias I have no intention of banishing.

We live in a cul-de-sac by a church, its parking lot and a public grade school, with a picnic area, a playground and an athletic field nearby. Spuds needed to attend to his morning toilette, so as I have for the nearly three years we have had the pleasure of his company, I followed my pit bull mix on his leash as he went to his favorite peeing place, on the grass just across the cul-de-sac from our home. My dog was just about to complete the job, whereupon he would quickly return to his perch on our sofa, when we were interrupted by a woman, who walked up to within about 15 feet of us and said, “Sir, dogs upset my animals.”

I had noticed that on this day the church or the school had set up a temporary petting zoo near the picnic tables and by the school playground, about 10 yards from where Spuds and I were. Quite a few young kids and their parents were crowded around a pen that appeared to contain a couple of goats, a lamb or two, and an alpaca.

“Why are you telling me this?” I asked, annoyed at her attitude.

“Well, sir, I don’t want you to bring your dog up to the pen. It will upset my animals.”

I was not in the mood to put up with this, in part because I have long vowed not to.

Continue reading

No, Not A Divine Miracle, Nor Even A Religious Charlatan Who’s Now Overdrawn At The Moral Luck Bank…

It’s a hoax.

The viral video above supposedly shows a Nigerian pastor with the handle ‘Pastor Daniel’ entering the lions’ cage at a zoo to show that nothing can happen to a man of God, just like in the Bible story. “Pastor Daniel brought his church members to show them that nothing can happen to a man of God,” a Nigerian blogger wrote on Instagram. In Kenya, a local television station shared the video and it caught the attention of a member of the Kenyan parliament, Ronald Karauri. “I volunteer to take him to the Maasai Mara [national park] please, all expenses paid. We look for the lions and he can go walk with them,” he posted on Twitter/X.

Uh, no. The BBC investigated, and the video is from Somalia, while the episode shot took place in 2021 in the Somali capital, Mogadishu. The “pastor” was Mohamed Abdirahman Mohamed. He is a zookeeper and explained at the time that he raised the young lions that he is shown playing with.

Now, in 1991 a genuine emulator of the biblical Daniel, “Prophet Daniel Abodunrin,” actually did enter the lion enclosure at the University of Ibadan zoo in Nigeria. He was a real preacher, and invited his followers to watch him as he demonstrated how the power of faith can tame the savage beasts. After entering the lions’ den—it is believed a zookeeper let him in—Abodunrin chanted Bible verses while commanding communicating the big cats to be peaceful

The lions pounced on him, tore Abodunrin apart, and ate him.

.

‘….Then They Came For Robert E. Lee’s Horse, And I Did Not Speak Out…’

Earlier this month, Washington and Lee University, as part of its contrived efforts to keep using the names of two American icons who also were slaveholders while continuing to grovel to the political correctness mob, removed markers erected in memory of Robert E. Lee’s famous horse, Traveller. The steed’s gravestone was removed (he’s buried on the campus), and a commemorative plaque came down as well.

Traveller carried Lee during the Civil War and later, when the ex-general became president of the then-Washington College from 1865 until his death in 1871. Traveller died a few months after his owner. But newly uncovered documents revealed that Traveller was a virulent racist, and worse, kept a stable of enslaved Shetland ponies on the Washington and Lee campus.

Okay, I was kidding about that last part.

Continue reading

Comment Of The Day: “How Can We ‘Trust The Science’ When It’s Distorted By Activist Scientists?” Audubon’s Bird Scam”

On days like today, taken up by a frantic effort to prepare for an all-new seminar I’m teaching the usual unexpected crisis, plus wasting time dealing with a partisan troll whom I knew from the start was eventually going to get herself banned (and she did), I am especially grateful for thoughtful Comments of the Day in the inventory to keep the quality content coming. Such is Ryan Harkins’ comment on the post, “How Can We ‘Trust The Science’ When It’s Distorted By Activist Scientists?” —and here it is:

***

I can certainly applaud the desire to mitigate damage to our native fauna that our cities create, but I would think there are several things that any advocacy group should keep in mind.

1. Sensationalism might spur the gullible, but it trashes credibility among anyone who bothers to investigate. Once you’ve lost credibility, it is an enormous uphill battle to regain trust.

2. In the same vein, even accurate numbers need to be placed in context. A billion birds a year sounds like a frighteningly high number. But it gives no context for how severe the problem is. It could be an imminent threat to all bird populations, or it could be a very minor issue. Killing a billion humans would be devastating to the human race. Killing a billion ants doesn’t even make a dent in their overall population. I Googled around and found that estimates put the bird population in the US and Canada at about 7.2 billion. However, that doesn’t mean that in 8 years, there would be no more birds. Yes, since 1970, that number has declined from over 10 billion, but that means 3 billion overall over 50 years. However, even that doesn’t provide the full context, because people need to understand the various causes that impacted bird population loss (which is largely due to loss of habitat), and they need to understand that killing a billion birds a year doesn’t lead to an overall decline of a billion birds in the total population. Instead, many of those birds will have died of predators, disease, old age, or other accidents, and their deaths often mean resources made available to the remaining birds who will then survive and reproduce. The real question is how quickly the overall bird population is declining, and whether that decline is accelerating or leveling off.

Continue reading

If Donald Trump Were An Ethical, Responsible Public Servant And Wanted To Do What Was In The Best Interests Of His Nation…

…he would announce that he was withdrawing from the Presidential race immediately, because the prosecutions he faces, just or unjust, will be a destructive distraction from the election as well as an impediment to him serving as President if he were nominated and elected.

And if I were an aardvark, I could save money on groceries by eating ants and termites.

Trump won’t do this, of course (that is, drop out, not eat ants and termites), but it is the only ethical alternative. A lawyer facing a single serious indictment would step away from his or her law firm. An ethical judge would resign. A doctor facing indictments would take a leave of absence. A general facing such legal jeopardy would retire. The United States cannot have a Presidential candidate laboring under the shadow of multiple criminal prosecutions any more than it can afford to have a mentally declining President who serves as a puppet for aspiring totalitarians. Trump continuing his candidacy increases the likelihood of both.

If Richard Nixon had been like Trump—a toxic narcissist—he wouldn’t have resigned, and the nation would have been roiled and scarred by a genuine impeachment process. Clinton is like Trump—maybe a teeny-weeny bit less of a narcissist, but not much—and he should have resigned as the truth of the Monica Lewinsky allegations emerged. The nation and the Presidency—and his party—would have been far better off today if he had, and Clinton’s scandal was not even in the same metaphorical ballpark as Trump’s, which also includes a sexual assault civil ruling.

At this point, Trump continuing to seek the Presidency can only do damage, and the question is just “How much?” I don’t want to think about how much. His entire career has been built on a foundation of stubbornness, resilience and a refusal to admit defeat: quitting his quest for redemption goes against his core. Real patriots and great leaders, however, can muster the character and courage to do what needs to be done even when it violates all of their baser instincts. Unfortunately, I am not an aardvark, and Donald Trump is neither a real patriot or a great leader.

Continue reading

On Lady Gaga’s Frenchies: Not Surprisingly, Criminals Don’t Comprehend “The Unclean Hands Doctrine” [Corrected]

[In the original version of this post I confused readers by forgetting to erase pieces of the source article that I had pasted to the draft to save me the time of jumping back and forth between screens. My fault. Then I compounded the problem by leaving out the link. Fixed. It was all my fault; can’t blame WordPress this time.]

What a moron.

But then if criminals were smart, we’d be in even more trouble than we are…

Lady Gaga promised to pay a $500,0000 reward for the return of her two kidnapped French Bulldogs Gustav and Koji (two of the three above: sorry, I don’t know which). The pop icon’s dogwalker was shot and injured during the theft. Emulating the plot twist in the Mel Gibson thriller “Ransom,” however, one of the participants in the kidnapping scheme decided to collect the reward, arguing that because Gaga had said she would pay for the dogs’ return “no questions asked,” she was obligated even to pay someone who was involved in the crime.

Seeking the outlandish reward, Jennifer McBride was arrested when she turned in the dogs at a police station. She pleaded no contest to knowingly receiving stolen property and was sentenced to probation. I suppose the scheme was to have her collect the reward and split it with the dognappers.

After Lady Gaga warbled, “You’ve got to be kidding!’ when McBride asked for the money, McBride sued her for breach of contract.

Uh, no.

In rejecting the claim, Judge Hollie J. Fujie of Los Angeles Superior Court cited the ancient “unclean hands doctrine,” which holds that a litigant cannot benefit from a situation he or she deliberately helped to bring about by illegal or unethical conduct.

“The unclean hands doctrine demands that a plaintiff act fairly in the matter for which he seeks a remedy,” Fujie wrote, adding that the UHD “is an equitable rationale for refusing a plaintiff relief where principles of fairness dictate that the plaintiff should not recover, regardless of the merits of their claim.”

Continue reading

Spain Demonstrates Why We Have The First Amendment, And Why The US Must Protect It

Spain’s Parliament, in its wisdom, has declared dwarf bullfighting illegal. Not because the bulls are treated cruelly, mind you: oh no, that part is fine. It’s the small bullfighters the legislators find intolerable. (That’s a group of them rehearsing above.)

Comic bullfighting shows in which individuals with achondroplasia, a form of dwarfism, fight with juvenile bulls are now illegal. A new law bans “shows or leisure activities” employing a disability “to provoke public mockery, ridicule or derision.” As a result, the performers who earned their living putting on such shows are now forbidden from plying their craft, and citizens willing to pay to watch them can no longer do so. This is also embarrassing: the same law directs that “people with disabilities will participate in public shows and recreational activities, including bullfighting, without discrimination.”

Spain’s law arises from a failure to distinguish “Ick” from ethics, the same problem that has led some states to try to ban drag shows. There is no question that the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights would absolutely prohibit a law such as the Spanish dwarf bullfighting ban, and we should be grateful for that. The ethical principles embodied in freedom of expression include autonomy as well as intrinsic fairness and the Golden Rule validity of allowing others to have the same right to make their living as they choose without others deciding that because they wouldn’t make the same choices, those choices shouldn’t be available to anyone.

Continue reading

From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files…

Can’t handle criticism, can’t take a joke, believes that effective rhetoric that counters their assertions should be silenced.

In short, PETA reveals itself as typical of progressive activists in 2023.

2023’s Most Insulting Made-Up Excuse For Unethical Conduct So Far

I had assumed this story from last month had wrapped up the prize: A Colorado man was pulled over by police for speeding and swapped seats with his dog so he could claim, or at least try to claim, that the dog was driving.

“The driver attempted to switch places with his dog who was in the passenger seat, as the SPD officer approached and watched the entire process,” the official statement reads. “The male party then exited the passenger side of the vehicle and claimed he was not driving.” The suspect showed “clear signs of intoxication,” and when the officer asked about his alcohol consumption, he tried to run away but was quickly caught.

The dog told the officers that he was grateful for their intervention because he “thought that idiot was going to kill us both.”

OK, I’m kidding about that last part. There have been some really weird ethics stories involving dogs lately. I ultimately decided not to write about this one, the Penn State professor caught having repeated sex with his dog to “blow off steam” because there are so many tasteless—but funny!—jokes that come to mind and I might not be able to resist making some of them.

But I digress. Almost as revolting as that story is the new leader for worst 2023 excuse, Dr Nicholas Chapman, 55, a British general practitioner, who has been convicted of putting his semen into coffee he served to a female acquaintance in September of 2021. The court was told that Chapman was accused of adding his semen to drinks he made for the victim on several occasions. When the woman kept a sample of some of the cofee he had made for her, tests confirmed the secret ingredient and the DNA matched Chapman’s.

The doctor swore he was innocent. He had a rare condition that causes him to ejaculate while urinating, he said, and he just keeps forgetting to wash his hands after finishing up in the loo.

[I used a photo of Porter, the first driving dog, above instead of a picture related to Chapman’s excuse because…well, you know why…]